4

JON "STEWART" REALLY NEEDS TO SHUT HIS YAP ABOUT THE 9/11 1ST RESPONDERS BILL
764   28

  • Banned
    0

    He keeps bringing this up for some reason.

    Trying to whip libshits and dems into a foamy lather because some Republicans stood in the way of passing it.

    Which means Donald Trump doesn't care about police or something.

    He also needs some perspective.

    Actions taken under the leadership of Democratic presidents:

    • Japanese-American internment camps.

    • The dropping of two atomic weapons on the nation of Japan.

    (Previous 2 excusable because muh holocaust and stepping stone towards officiation of Israel)

    • Passing some of the first anti-gun laws against blacks.

    • Founding the Ku Klux Klan.

    • Murdering Abraham Lincoln.

    And I could go on and on.


  • SwimNinja
    1

    I like to think if Japan wouldn't have been nuked we wouldn't of gotten the crazy anime we have now. So I approve of it.

    Here in Cloud Cuckoo Land, there are no rules: There's no government, no baby sitters, no bedtimes, no frowny faces, no bushy mustaches, and no negativity of any kind. And there's also no consistency.


  • Super Nerd of the Year
    1

    Threnodic said:

    Actions taken under the leadership of Democratic presidents:

    • Murdering Abraham Lincoln.

    Wait. What.


  • 0

    Lol.

    You called down the thunder. Well, now you've got it!


  • SwimSuperFan Banned
    3

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    I have reached acceptance.

    Blatch's Toonami Ratings Timeline

    Escalator

    • Wednesdays: Squid Girl (in my dedicated thread)
    • Sundays: TBA
    • Random days: Re:ZERO (anime watching thread, w/ commentary on Imgur)

  • Swimuminati
    0

    inconvenient truths are inconvenient

    dude I swear this time is different. I swear before god, buddah, my dead grandma, and asmb. i will never drink again.

    -Phillies 8/15/2016


  • Banned
    0

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "


  • 1

    Threnodic said:

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "

    Lol.

    You called down the thunder. Well, now you've got it!


  • 3

    Threnodic said:

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "

    facepalm

    It's not a copout to address that the parties switched positions in the late-30s-early-40s. It's a literal fact.

    The Democrats formed the Confederacy, and fought to keep slavery, but that form of Democrat was ideologically much more comparable to contemporary Republican.

    This isn't an excuse, it's a remedial history lesson.


  • Super Nerd of the Year
    2

    naraku360 said:

    Threnodic said:

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "

    facepalm

    It's not a copout to address that the parties switched positions in the late-30s-early-40s. It's a literal fact.

    The Democrats formed the Confederacy, and fought to keep slavery, but that form of Democrat was ideologically much more comparable to contemporary Republican.

    This isn't an excuse, it's a remedial history lesson.

    Shhh...Don't tell him facts, it will just make him angry.


  • 0

    cowboy_stilgar said:

    Threnodic said:

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "

    Lol.

    These points are always hilarious since they're more telling about modern Republicans than they are about Democrats.


  • 0

    Athena92 said:

    naraku360 said:

    Threnodic said:

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "

    facepalm

    It's not a copout to address that the parties switched positions in the late-30s-early-40s. It's a literal fact.

    The Democrats formed the Confederacy, and fought to keep slavery, but that form of Democrat was ideologically much more comparable to contemporary Republican.

    This isn't an excuse, it's a remedial history lesson.

    Shhh...Don't tell him facts, it will just make him angry.

    I forgot, facts are a cop-out.


  • Banned
    0

    naraku360 said:

    Threnodic said:

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "

    facepalm

    It's not a copout to address that the parties switched positions in the late-30s-early-40s. It's a literal fact.

    The Democrats formed the Confederacy, and fought to keep slavery, but that form of Democrat was ideologically much more comparable to contemporary Republican.

    This isn't an excuse, it's a remedial history lesson.

    If Republicans and Democrats "switched positions" why would the Republicans switch to worse political beliefs?

    You're basically using we wuz kangz logic here and just trying to appropriate Republican accomplishments in lieu of your failures.


  • 0

    Threnodic said:

    naraku360 said:

    Threnodic said:

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "

    facepalm

    It's not a copout to address that the parties switched positions in the late-30s-early-40s. It's a literal fact.

    The Democrats formed the Confederacy, and fought to keep slavery, but that form of Democrat was ideologically much more comparable to contemporary Republican.

    This isn't an excuse, it's a remedial history lesson.

    If Republicans and Democrats "switched positions" why would the Republicans switch to worse political beliefs?

    You're basically using we wuz kangz logic here and just trying to appropriate Republican accomplishments in lieu of your failures.

    Lol.

    You called down the thunder. Well, now you've got it!


  • Banned
    0

    cowboy_stilgar said:

    Threnodic said:

    naraku360 said:

    Threnodic said:

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "

    facepalm

    It's not a copout to address that the parties switched positions in the late-30s-early-40s. It's a literal fact.

    The Democrats formed the Confederacy, and fought to keep slavery, but that form of Democrat was ideologically much more comparable to contemporary Republican.

    This isn't an excuse, it's a remedial history lesson.

    If Republicans and Democrats "switched positions" why would the Republicans switch to worse political beliefs?

    You're basically using we wuz kangz logic here and just trying to appropriate Republican accomplishments in lieu of your failures.

    Lol.

    I don't see what's so funny to you.

    That's basically the amount of water the "we switched" argument holds.

    About, none.


  • 0

    Threnodic said:

    cowboy_stilgar said:

    Threnodic said:

    naraku360 said:

    Threnodic said:

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "

    facepalm

    It's not a copout to address that the parties switched positions in the late-30s-early-40s. It's a literal fact.

    The Democrats formed the Confederacy, and fought to keep slavery, but that form of Democrat was ideologically much more comparable to contemporary Republican.

    This isn't an excuse, it's a remedial history lesson.

    If Republicans and Democrats "switched positions" why would the Republicans switch to worse political beliefs?

    You're basically using we wuz kangz logic here and just trying to appropriate Republican accomplishments in lieu of your failures.

    Lol.

    I don't see what's so funny to you.

    That's basically the amount of water the "we switched" argument holds.

    About, none.

    Except the part where the ideologies literally did swap.


  • Banned
    0

    naraku360 said:

    Threnodic said:

    cowboy_stilgar said:

    Threnodic said:

    naraku360 said:

    Threnodic said:

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "

    facepalm

    It's not a copout to address that the parties switched positions in the late-30s-early-40s. It's a literal fact.

    The Democrats formed the Confederacy, and fought to keep slavery, but that form of Democrat was ideologically much more comparable to contemporary Republican.

    This isn't an excuse, it's a remedial history lesson.

    If Republicans and Democrats "switched positions" why would the Republicans switch to worse political beliefs?

    You're basically using we wuz kangz logic here and just trying to appropriate Republican accomplishments in lieu of your failures.

    Lol.

    I don't see what's so funny to you.

    That's basically the amount of water the "we switched" argument holds.

    About, none.

    Except the part where the ideologies literally did swap.

    Even if that was true, which it isn't, what does that matter?

    People's ideologies change.

    The ideologies don't.

    You could say it was more akin to a rebranding, but again, it doesn't matter because it's simply not true.


  • 0

    Threnodic said:

    cowboy_stilgar said:

    Threnodic said:

    naraku360 said:

    Threnodic said:

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "

    facepalm

    It's not a copout to address that the parties switched positions in the late-30s-early-40s. It's a literal fact.

    The Democrats formed the Confederacy, and fought to keep slavery, but that form of Democrat was ideologically much more comparable to contemporary Republican.

    This isn't an excuse, it's a remedial history lesson.

    If Republicans and Democrats "switched positions" why would the Republicans switch to worse political beliefs?

    You're basically using we wuz kangz logic here and just trying to appropriate Republican accomplishments in lieu of your failures.

    Lol.

    I don't see what's so funny to you.

    That's basically the amount of water the "we switched" argument holds.

    About, none.

    Lol.

    You called down the thunder. Well, now you've got it!


  • Banned
    0

    cowboy_stilgar said:

    Threnodic said:

    cowboy_stilgar said:

    Threnodic said:

    naraku360 said:

    Threnodic said:

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "

    facepalm

    It's not a copout to address that the parties switched positions in the late-30s-early-40s. It's a literal fact.

    The Democrats formed the Confederacy, and fought to keep slavery, but that form of Democrat was ideologically much more comparable to contemporary Republican.

    This isn't an excuse, it's a remedial history lesson.

    If Republicans and Democrats "switched positions" why would the Republicans switch to worse political beliefs?

    You're basically using we wuz kangz logic here and just trying to appropriate Republican accomplishments in lieu of your failures.

    Lol.

    I don't see what's so funny to you.

    That's basically the amount of water the "we switched" argument holds.

    About, none.

    Lol.

    You offer no rebuttal or counter argument.

    Laugh all you want if it makes you feel better.


  • 0

    Threnodic said:

    naraku360 said:

    Threnodic said:

    cowboy_stilgar said:

    Threnodic said:

    naraku360 said:

    Threnodic said:

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "

    facepalm

    It's not a copout to address that the parties switched positions in the late-30s-early-40s. It's a literal fact.

    The Democrats formed the Confederacy, and fought to keep slavery, but that form of Democrat was ideologically much more comparable to contemporary Republican.

    This isn't an excuse, it's a remedial history lesson.

    If Republicans and Democrats "switched positions" why would the Republicans switch to worse political beliefs?

    You're basically using we wuz kangz logic here and just trying to appropriate Republican accomplishments in lieu of your failures.

    Lol.

    I don't see what's so funny to you.

    That's basically the amount of water the "we switched" argument holds.

    About, none.

    Except the part where the ideologies literally did swap.

    Even if that was true, which it isn't, what does that matter?

    People's ideologies change.

    The ideologies don't.

    You could say it was more akin to a rebranding, but again, it doesn't matter because it's simply not true.

    The point is that your assessment reflects more about modern Republicans than it does modern Democrats.


  • 0

    Threnodic said:

    cowboy_stilgar said:

    Threnodic said:

    cowboy_stilgar said:

    Threnodic said:

    naraku360 said:

    Threnodic said:

    Blatch0 said:

    Most of those things happened before the Democratic party took a predominantly liberal stance, so it's not a good way to represent the party's current actions. Maybe you're the one who needs just a little bit of perspective.

    You must be a Democrat.

    I can tell because that's exactly the copout excuse a Democrat would come up with to defend the atrocious actions of their party in the past.

    Also because of the doublespeak phrase "took a predominantly liberal stance" as a code for "slow slide into communism. "

    facepalm

    It's not a copout to address that the parties switched positions in the late-30s-early-40s. It's a literal fact.

    The Democrats formed the Confederacy, and fought to keep slavery, but that form of Democrat was ideologically much more comparable to contemporary Republican.

    This isn't an excuse, it's a remedial history lesson.

    If Republicans and Democrats "switched positions" why would the Republicans switch to worse political beliefs?

    You're basically using we wuz kangz logic here and just trying to appropriate Republican accomplishments in lieu of your failures.

    Lol.

    I don't see what's so funny to you.

    That's basically the amount of water the "we switched" argument holds.

    About, none.

    Lol.

    You offer no rebuttal or counter argument.

    Laugh all you want if it makes you feel better.

    Lol.

    You called down the thunder. Well, now you've got it!


Log in to reply